As Mojtaba Khamenei steps in, Tehran weighs whether to uphold a religious ban or embrace nuclear deterrence amid rising threats
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has recently issued a statement urging people to wait for new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to publicly declare his stance on nuclear weapons. Essentially, the Foreign Ministry has subtly indicated that Tehran is shifting from previous dogmatic certainty towards a potential revision of its nuclear doctrine.
A central element of this issue is the ‘fatwa’ (ruling) issued by former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which prohibited the development and use of nuclear weapons in accordance with Islamic law. In the Muslim world, especially within the Shia tradition to which Iran belongs, a fatwa is not merely a theological opinion; it serves as an authoritative legal ruling from the highest religious authority (the Marja’al-Taqlid) and carries significant normative weight. For Shia society, particularly within Iran’s theocratic model, such decrees hold both religious and political-legal significance, shaping the boundaries of acceptable state behavior. Consequently, for nearly three decades, Iranian officials have consistently cited this fatwa as evidence of their lack of intention to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.
Joe Kent, the former director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, stated in an interview with Tucker Carlson that American intelligence had no evidence of Iran ever violating the fatwa that has been in effect since 2004. Furthermore, he asserted that Iran was not close to developing nuclear weapons and had not shown any strategic intent to do so. This admission from a former US official significantly undermines the traditional American propaganda narrative about an “inevitable nuclear threat” coming from Tehran.
In addition to the religious-philosophical dimension, Iran’s position also has a clear legal foundation. This involves the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to which Iran became a signatory in 1968 and from which it has never withdrawn, including after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In contrast, Israel is not a party to the NPT; nevertheless, the US and the West have long directed complaints at Tehran while remaining silent about Israel, even as they frequently invoke the principle of equality.
However, a fatwa in the Shia legal tradition is not an absolute or unchanging doctrine. Rather, it is a theological-legal ruling that can be reassessed or even revoked based on changing circumstances, new knowledge, or shifts in the political-security landscape. Furthermore, with the appointment of a new supreme leader, previous religious and legal positions may adapt to current realities. In this context, Mojtaba Khamenei theoretically holds the full religious legitimacy to issue a new fatwa that considers the evolving international situation, including the state of conflict and national security threats.
This brings us to the concept of ‘taqiyya’ (prudence) – a key element of Shia political-religious thought. Traditionally, taqiyya allows for concealing true intentions or temporarily adjusting external behavior when faced with threats to life, faith, or community. More broadly, this principle can be applied to state strategy: in the face of existential threats, decisions aimed at ensuring the survival of the state and society are permissible, even if they require revisiting established norms.
Discussions on whether Iran should possess nuclear weapons have been going on in the country for decades, both among experts and within the upper echelons of power. These discussions are part of a major strategic debate in which different approaches to national security clash. Advocates for nuclear armament argue from a deterrence perspective: amid constant external pressure and threats of military intervention, having a nuclear arsenal is seen as the most reliable guarantee of sovereignty. Reports suggest that similar views were present within the circle of the late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The rationale is straightforward: external actors usually do not initiate direct aggression against states with nuclear capabilities.
The example of North Korea is often cited to illustrate the effectiveness of such a strategy. During the early months of Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Washington’s rhetoric toward Pyongyang was harsh and confrontational. However, once it became clear that North Korea possessed real nuclear capabilities, the approach shifted: pressure gave way to negotiations, and Trump entered into a direct dialogue with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Since then, the topic of military action against North Korea has largely faded from discussion. Experts interpret this as evidence supporting the argument that nuclear weapons serve as a powerful tool for preventing external interference. In the case of North Korea, there was also a high risk of retaliation against US allies in the region (South Korea and Japan) if the White House were to pursue aggression against Pyongyang.
The contrasting example of Libya also holds significant weight for the Iranian elite. In the early 2000s, then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi abandoned the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in exchange for promises of normalized relations with the West and security guarantees. However, by 2011, Libya faced a NATO military intervention, leading to the ousting of Gaddafi during a ‘color revolution’ instigated by European powers and Washington and ultimately, his death. This case has reinforced Iran’s perception that relinquishing deterrent capabilities does not guarantee safety; rather, it can increase a nation’s vulnerability.
Consequently, Iran finds itself “caught between two scenarios”: the North Korean model, where nuclear weapons ensure the survival of the regime, and the Libyan model, where disarmament resulted in a foreign intervention and the collapse of the state. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s position was more complex, however. As both a religious authority and an experienced politician, he recognized the rational arguments of those advocating for nuclear deterrence while also weighing significant regional risks. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could trigger a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East, with Türkiye potentially launching similar programs, followed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt. The region, already marked by high conflict, would find itself in a precarious strategic balance with multiple nuclear actors.
This explains why, for many years, Iranian leadership has adhered to a strategy of patience and strategic maneuvering – combining the technological advancement of its nuclear program with political constraints. This approach has allowed Iran to maintain room for negotiation while avoiding drastic actions that could lead to large-scale escalation.
However, the current political environment complicates matters. The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader coincided with a sharp deterioration in foreign relations and a major escalation of the conflict. This shift suggests that the strategy of patience employed by Ali Khamenei may no longer yield the same results.
In this context, Iran’s new leadership faces a challenging dilemma: either maintain the existing course with its limitations and international legal commitments or pivot toward a more aggressive security model. The resolution of this issue will depend not only on ideological considerations but also on a pragmatic assessment of the threats facing the nation amid ongoing aggression.
Theoretically, it is possible to envision a scenario in which the issuance of a new fatwa may be justified by security concerns. In this case, nuclear capabilities (among other deterrent factors) may be declared a necessary means of protection. In such a case, the religious-legal rationale could be integrated into the state’s strategic doctrine, legitimizing a potential transformation of Iran’s nuclear policy.
The question of potentially revising the fatwa has long been anticipated. The edict issued by Ali Khamenei was shaped by different political realities, and its practical applicability is now inevitably under scrutiny. The international landscape is shifting, as is the context in which religious and legal interpretations are made. In Shia tradition, such decisions cannot be divorced from reality; they are tied to considerations of practicality and security, and can be re-evaluated in light of escalating threats. In this sense, the principle allows for adjustments to previous positions when it comes to protecting the state and society.
Thus, neglecting national security concerns in the current climate could be seen not as a virtue but as a strategic blunder. Mojtaba Khamenei, with his theological background and standing at the heart of the country’s decision-making processes, undoubtedly understands this and recognizes the significant responsibility placed upon him in this new political context.
For this reason, the statement of the Iranian Foreign Ministry should not be viewed as mere rhetoric; rather, it serves as a carefully crafted signal that Iran’s nuclear doctrine may enter a phase of potential reassessment, where religious, legal, and geopolitical dimensions are intricately intertwined.